In Australia, car makers have come to be seen by many as more of a cost than a benefit, a failing industry that was too reliant on government handouts. But in the United States, many state governments have attracted foreign investment that has provided ongoing economic security.

Now the end of car manufacturing in Australia is fast approaching. Ford Australia will close its production line in Broadmeadows on October 7, where the iconic Falcon has been made for almost six decades.

On the same day, Holden will close Cruze production in Adelaide, and Ford will shutter its engine plant in Geelong. In the course of the next year, Australia’s three car makers – Ford, Holden, and Toyota – will shut down completely.

In all, more than 5,000 production jobs, plus many more white collar and supplier positions, will be lost.

The shutdowns come following the 1984 Button Plan, a Hawke government initiative that provided for phased tariff reductions (2.5% per annum) as well as fewer separate manufacturing facilities. After this, industry protections were gradually removed and successive governments also signed more free trade agreements that made it easier for imported brands to penetrate the Australian market.

By contrast in the US over the past few decades, a series of states have paid large financial incentives to attract foreign-owned car makers.

In 1980, Tennessee officials offered Nissan a US$33 million package to build its first American plant in Smyrna, while in 1985 Kentucky committed US$149 million in subsidies to lure Toyota to Georgetown. Another generous package, including a US$1 a year lease on a US$36 million piece of land, brought BMW to Greer, South Carolina in the early 1990s. From there, the incentives continued to escalate.

In the mid-1990s, Alabama spent US$325 million to bring Mercedes-Benz to Vance, and also gave generously to secure Honda and Hyundai factories. By 2002, Alabama’s total subsidies to foreign automakers were an estimated US$874 million. More recently, Mississippi has paid close to US$800 million to land plants by Toyota and Nissan.

Ironically, the subsidies have been dished out mainly by southern states. The South is the most conservative region in America.

Many of the incentives have been authorised not by Democrats but by conservative, patriotic Republicans. Governing over states that are among the poorest in America, they argued that the cost of landing high-paying automotive jobs was justified.

Twenty-five years ago, for example, the Deep South state of Alabama had never produced a vehicle. By 2015, more than 13,000 people were employed in four major assembly plants, while a further 24,000 worked for suppliers. “Whatever it cost,” economic recruiter Ellen McNair asserted, “it was worth it”.

There are important differences between the Australian and American stories. In the US, a more decentralised political system means that states compete with one another to land industrial investment. Unions are much weaker in the US than in Australia, and southern states used weak labour laws, together with promises to fight organised labour, to lure automotive investment.

Transplant car workers are paid well by the standards of their area, yet not as much as their counterparts in Michigan and other traditional car-making states. The poverty of southern US states also drove their search for car plants, whereas in Australia, economic boosters argue the economy is diversified and displaced car workers can find other employment more easily. The US also has a much bigger vehicle market than Australia.

Unlike Australia, the US has used incentives to maintain a viable automobile industry. While Australia’s car industry was contracting, total domestic vehicle production in the US actually grew, and investments by foreign companies have also kept industry employment levels steady.

Many Americans believe that a viable automotive manufacturing sector is essential for their economy. It remains to be seen whether the Australian car industry can cope easily with the shutdowns.

The US experience, however, suggests that those displaced will not be able to move on so easily, and that Australia might be losing more than many of us realise.

Timothy Minchin receives funding from the Australian Research Council to study the foreign-owned automotive sector in the U.S.

Disclaimer: EconoTimes provides references and links to selected blogs and other sources of economic and market information as an educational service to its clients and prospects and does not endorse the opinions or recommendations of the blogs or other sources of information. Clients and prospects are advised to carefully consider the opinions and analysis offered in the blogs or other information sources in the context of the client or prospect's individual analysis and decision making. None of the blogs or other sources of information is to be considered as constituting a track record. Past performance is no guarantee of future results and EconoTimes specifically advises clients and prospects to carefully review all claims and representations made by advisors, bloggers, money managers and system vendors before investing any funds or opening an account with any Brokerage. Any news, opinions, research, data, or other information contained within this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment or trading advice. EconoTimes expressly disclaims any liability for any lost principal or profits without limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of or reliance on such information. As with all such advisory services, past results are never a guarantee of future results.

Welcome to EconoTimes

Sign up for daily updates for the most important
stories unfolding in the global economy.